The Involuntary Parent

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Oct 13 2009

I’m not sure how it happened, there I was, a single guy with no responsibilities living a carefree life. Oh sure, I had a job and the responsibilities that go with that as well as the standard upkeep we all have. Phone bill, cable bill, groceries, rent, vehicle maintenance, personal hygiene, cooking, cleaning and all that goes with a life.

What I’m saying is that I have no children. Those of you who have children know about those responsibilities. Wow, those crumb crunchers come along and your life no longer belongs to you. I have a dog, plenty much for me for the time being.

Then I made a mistake, no I’m not talking about an unintended pregnancy, I’m thinking about when I started to become interested in politics. I had a desire to take my part in the election process every four years after my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 but that was about it. I was a republican back when that meant something but I really didn’t understand what it meant at the time.

“CONSERVATISM” That’s my principle belief though I consider it to be a bit of a misnomer. The word implies a desire to keep things unchanging and whereas there are many characteristics of our society that are worth keeping there are some things that should be changed. I think that we conservatives want not so much the world that was as the world that should be. Case in point, whereas I am a firm advocate of discrimination on a personal scale, to discriminate against any group based on an inherited trait is wrong. In my life I have had friends who were Hispanic, Asian, black and Indian, both American and east and people I disliked of the same races. That was discrimination both in favor of and against individuals but it had nothing to do with race.

But I digress. As it turns out I am father to millions. Yes you read it right. I buy their food, their clothing, their medical care, dental, schooling, college, retirement. I pay for their legal expenses and their incarceration should they be found guilty. I have always thought that it took a DNA test to determine paternity and consequent responsibility. But, turns out, that isn’t it.

I HAVE A JOB, that’s it; I have an income so I have a parental responsibility to anyone who doesn’t. If and when I have a child my responsibility to him is clear. I will have chosen to bring a life to this world, a life that at first will not be able to care for itself and must be protected and cared for and that is both an obligation and a honor that I will gladly accept. As that child grows however the obligation will change in that I must teach that child self sufficiency for there will be a time when I will be no more. He must have the knowledge and drive to be able to produce not only what he needs but also abundance so that he may become a contributing part of his world. A world populated with such people as this will flourish.

But that is not the world we live in is it. There are parents who teach their children that they have a right to consume where they have not produced and the government will provide.

The government provides NOTHING except the force to make involuntary parents of all those who choose a productive life.

This I Believe

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Oct 11 2009

This is from an E-Mail I received.  It was presented

as written  by Dr Vakin but upon investigating its

veracity I found that it is an excerpt from an

article by Ali Sina. That being said, I do in fact believe

that it is an accurate portrayal of our president.

Dr.Vaknin States “I must  confess I was impressed by
Sen.Barack  Obama from the first time I saw him.  At
first I was excited to see  a black candidate.   He
looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be  confident – a
wholesome presidential package.  I  was put off  soon,
not just because of his shallowness but also because there
was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was
unsettling.  His posture  and his body language were
louder than his empty  words.  Obama’s speeches are
unlike any political speech we have heard in
American history.  Never a politician in this land had
such quasi “religious” impact on so many
people.

The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero
accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation
alarming.  Obama is not an ordinary man.  He is not a
genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important
subjects.”
Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam  Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love
believes
“Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”
Vaknin is a world
authority on narcissism.  He understands narcissism and
describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other
person.  When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.

Vaknin says that Obama’s  language, posture and
demeanor, and the  testimonies of his closest, dearest
friends suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or
he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of
themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of
People’s Temple , the man who led over 900 of
his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even
murder their own children was also a narcissist. David
Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko  Asahara,
Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a
few examples of narcissists of our time.  All these men
had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created
a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing
speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with
enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for
life. They gave them hope!  They promised them the moon,
but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.

When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you
don’t know it
until it is too late.  One determining factor in the
development of NPD is childhood abuse. “Obama’s
early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic
and mentally bruising dislocations,”says Vaknin.
“Mixed-race marriages were even less common then.
His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant
(two  years  old).   Obama saw his father only once
again, before he died in a car accident.  Then his mother
re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a
foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be
raised by a  step- father.  At the age of ten, he was
whisked off to live  with his maternal
(white)grandparents.  He saw his  mother
only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished
from his life in 1979.  She died of cancer in
1995.”

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of
pathological narcissists.  They project such an imposing
personality that it overwhelms those around them.  Charmed
by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay
in his hands.  They cheerfully do his bidding and delight
to be at his service.  The narcissist shapes the world
around himself and reduces others in his  own inverted
image.  He creates a cult of personality.  His
admirers become his co-dependents.  Narcissists have no
interest in things that do not help them to reach their
personal objective.  They are focused on one thing alone
and that is power.   All other issues are meaningless to
them and  they do not want to waste their precious time on
trivialities..  Anything that does not help them is beneath
them  and do not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in
one way or another, he has no interest in it.   The
“present” vote is a safe vote.  No  one can
criticize him if things go wrong.  Those issues are
unworthy by their very nature because they are not about
him.

Obama’s election as the first black president of the
Harvard Law
Review led to a contract and advance to write a book
about race relations.   The University of Chicago Law
School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the
end it evolved into, guess what?  His own autobiography!
Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race
relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not
resist writing about his most sublime self.  He entitled
the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own
autobiography
when he was still a nobody.  So did Stalin.  For a
narcissist no
subject is as important as his own self.   Why would he
waste his precious time and genius writing about
insignificant things when he can write about such an august
being as himself?

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless.  As the
norm, they lack conscience.  This is evident from
Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives
on only one dollar per month.  A man who lives in luxury,
who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii , and who has
raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign
(something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the
plight of his own brother.  Why?   Because, his brother
cannot be used for his ascent to power.   A
narcissist cares for no one but himself.

This election is like no other in the history of America .                                                                                                                                                                           The issues are insignificant compared to what is at
stake.  What can be more dangerous than having a man
bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot
distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the
free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not
alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to
others….
They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences
symptoms of pathological narcissism,  which is different
from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a
Bill Clinton for example.  To him reality and fantasy
are intertwined.

This  is  a mental health issue, not just a character
flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look
normal and even intelligent.  It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama.
But this man could put an end to their party.  The
great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for
Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him
is racially driven.  This is racism, pure and simple.

The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the
disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment
among the whites.  The blacks are unlikely to give up
their support of their man.  Cultic mentality is
pernicious and unrelenting.  They will dig their heads
deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of
racism.  This will cause a backlash among the whites.  The
white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent
and they will receive widespread support.   I predict
that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase
to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960’s..

Obama will set the clock back decades… America is the
bastion of freedom.  The peace of the world depends on the
strength of America , and its weakness translates into the
triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.  It is
no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the
Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the  Guantanamo
terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America  are
so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White
House.

America is on the verge of destruction. There is no
insanity
greater than electing a pathological narcissist as
president.

What The Hell Else Would They Be

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Oct 03 2009

Conception, the beginning of life, for everything. Except for one celled organisms of course. For all complex creatures life begins at conception. A fetus is alive.  So abortionists, pro abortionists or to use their term, pro choice (that makes it sound nice doesn’t it) are choosing to kill a living creature.  When they do this they try to justify their actions by saying that it’s not a human being that is dying. Well what the hell else would it be? Gee, it looks kinda like a frog at one point in it’s development, maybe it is a frog, there’s nothing wrong with killing a frog is there? (Don’t say that to PETA)

No matter what it looks like it is born a human being. At that point no one in their right mind would advocate it’s death. That would be infanticide.

We are all mortal and when we die, that’s it. This earth has no more claim on us. But we do have a kind of earthly immortality, yep, children. They are our life after we have passed on. They are the human race for their span of years continued on through their own children into the future till time ends.

And yet, there are those who advocate the destruction of this most precious commodity. After all, I’m not ready right now and there’s no reason to suffer the consequences of my actions and it’s not really a human being I’m killing and it’s not my fault and I wouldn’t make a good parent anyway and every body else is doing it and if it’s legal then it must be moral. WELL, what is moral in taking an innocent life. Where is the morality in denying a person the right to live and what makes them the arbiter of life and death.

Out of sight, out of mind. A child in the womb can’t be seen. That’s part of it. I don’t think, or, at least I hope that any of these pro abortion people would murder a child. However, that appears to be wishful thinking on my part. Peter Singer, the head of bioethics at Princeton university argues that only a person who is aware of their own existence, and desires to continue existing, has a right to life. As a consequence of this, a child as much as two years old may,  in effect be aborted.  I guess that a sleeping person may be killed using this argument. (Quick, let’s kill him before he wakes up; this way it won’t be murder)

Well my friends, it is certainly murder to me and murder most foul at that!

So He Thinks He’s Abe Lincoln

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Oct 03 2009

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong..
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

…..Abraham Lincoln

Makes Sense To Me

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Oct 02 2009

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

I Will Not Be A Victim

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Sep 29 2009

I got this in an E-mail and thought it important to share. If you value your freedom, please pass this on.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control..  From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.  From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

——————————

Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

——————————

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent.  Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY.  Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.  The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens.’

Without them, we are ’subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.  There is no possible victory in
defense.  The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either.  The final weapon is the brain.  All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND ‘S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY

CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT’S A NO BRAINER!

DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS

IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Beauty Is In The Mind Of The Beholder

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Sep 28 2009


Let me preface this by saying that beauty has nothing to do with sex appeal.

I’m going to start this by telling my White Christmas story. As much as I have any holiday traditions watching White Christmas is one of my favorites. I have loved Danny Kaye for as long as I can remember and that may very well be why I started watching this movie. He is in my opinion one of the greatest comedic talents that has ever graced the silver screen. So for some years I watched the movie because of him and to a lesser extent Bing Crosby and not at all for the actresses therein. Then some years later about the time I turned thirteen and had started noticing the rather delightful differences between boys and girls I saw how truly beautiful Vera Ellen was. Rosemary Clooney was just old. So, more years went by and thirteen turned into thirty one and Christmas rolled around again. Do you know that Rosemary Clooney is really a very attractive woman? (As I type this I check the respective ages of the actresses and find that, much to my chagrin, Vera Ellen is Rosemary Clooney’s senior by seven years, oh well, perspective is everything). The point is that physical beauty is a matter of perspective. I have not yet noticed Mary Wickes who played the house keeper, but in another decade or two I expect that to change.

In the novel “Stranger in a Strange Land” Valentine Michael Smith observes that all young women have the same face. He thinks to himself that Jubal (who is quite old although we are never told his actual age) has the most beautiful face he has ever seen. When I first read this I was about fifteen years old and I thought it was complete nonsense. Well now I am forty five and once again my perspective has changed.

I’m going to reference actresses since these are well known faces and the lady who works at my local post office would not mean anything to you. Lili Taylor, Kate Beckinsale, Liv Tyler, Jennifer Garner, Lisa Lobe etcetera all have the same face. They are all young and they are all beautiful but it is what I call the china doll beauty, perfect most definitely but undistinguished. On the other side of the coin are older actresses such as Judy Dench who has been a favorite of mine since I became aware of her as M in the James Bond movies.  Maggie Smith who plays Minerva McGonagall in the Harry Potter movies is another example. These women have their own faces, won with years of life.

The point to all this is that beauty is subjective. There is no standard.  When I was in high school I was totally gaga over Stevie Nicks. She was, to me, the quintessential woman.

Well, years passed. Looking at some pictures of Fleetwood Mac from back in the 80’s recently, all I saw was a very pretty child. Where had that beautiful woman gone? She had taken her place in my treasure trove of memories from when my life was a simpler place to live.

My One Racist Trait

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Sep 08 2009

There isn’t anyone that tics me off more than a racist, I mean seriously, of all the stupid things that people hate each other for, skin color has got to take the cake. When one has ideological differences such as liberalism versus conservatism, then a serious dislike is natural. But these require making a choice and by extension taking action based on that choice. When one takes an action one must expect that others will judge him based on that. But skin color, well, I didn’t choose to be white so how can anyone judge me on that?
Some years ago I had an acquaintance who was a member of the aryan brotherhood, at the time I had never heard of them and I wish that were still the case. Well, he hated black people and in a vain attempt to reason with I started listing all the notables of that race. These were comprised mostly of celebrities as those would be people whom we would have shared knowledge of.
At the time Colin Powell was in the news frequently for his involvement in the Gulf War. Upon hearing his name my acquaintance proclaimed “he’s not black”. Now here was a man who through his actions had earned the admiration of our nation and this racist was unable to accept that he could be a member of a race he despised. “Stupid is as stupid does” as the line from that movie goes.
Now as to the title of this post. I am a middle age man and my hair is, to put is delicately “thinning”, especially on the top where it is “thinning” to the point of extinction. I can live with this as so many others have and will, but here’s the rub. Most, not all mind you, but most black men look good bald. I mean seriously, here I am, living with my thin? Thinner? Thinnest? Alright, my crown is bare, I admit it, but I am living with it. And then, Michael Jordan walks through my living room, trying to sell me whatever product he’s promoting now with his head completely shaved and he has the audacity to look good bald. Me? I could shave my head and have on occasion and I end up looking like l belong to some neo-Nazi skin head group. But Michael looks good bald like so many other black men do and I have no choice but to hate them for it.
It’s alright, I will seek therapy for my neurosis or maybe I’ll just wear a baseball cap. But it won’t be a Michael Jordan cap!

Poverty

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Sep 03 2009

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded–here and there, now and then–are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”

I Love My Dog

Politics | Posted by rationalanarchist
Aug 12 2009

As you may have guessed this is about my dog. Her name is Ananda and she is my ward. By this I mean that I feed her, shelter her and provide for her medical care. She relies on me for everything to sustain and further her life. I take full responsibility for her every action. Fortunately she is housebroken which is a relief since I no longer have to clean up those messes. She is a mixed breed of black Labrador retriever and golden retriever and has the best qualities of both. She is loyal, loving and  patient. I don’t believe she has a mean bone in her body which are some very admirable traits that I would like to see more of in my fellow man. When the day comes that she has lived her life to the fullest I will make the decision to euthanize her. 

Now, that being said, one must understand that she has no choice in the matter. She is the product of her environment and the result of generations of selective breeding. Much the same as the socialists are trying to do to us. Well my friends, I will be damned if I want to be turned into a domesticated animal. 

My “Master” (and make no mistake that he intends to be my master) Barack Obama is setting up a system to provide me with food, shelter, clothing and medical care. His idea of freedom is a cradle to grave society where every need is taken care of by the government. He will decide what I do for work and how much I get paid. I will live in his dog house which will be provided to me by the government with strict guidelines as to how I furnish it and how much fuel I can use to keep myself warm or cool. He will decide what I will eat in what quantities and of course when and how I will exercise.  

We humans have always made our own decisions for the better or worse. So many of us die before our time because of bad choices such as smoking and drinking, lack of exercise or other stupid self destructive behaviors. But, by God, that is our choice.  

Neither Obama or Bush or Clinton or any that have been or have yet to come have any business telling us how to behave. I am now an adult and have been for some time. My parents guided me as I grew and for that I thank them. But now, as an adult I must make my own way and make my own decisions.  

Our society has survived for two hundred years without the nanny state but I think that should Obama and his successors have their way this culture will die and be replaced with a group of lapdogs whining  for a treat from our masters in Washington.